The Russian invasion of Ukraine currently underway is primarily driven by self-interests and any real resolution of this conflict can only result from compromises made by all parties involved, including adjacent parties.
Every government/alliance acts primarily in its own best self-interests. Any action taken contrary to this is a fundamental failure of that government’s/alliance’s responsibilities towards its people or members.
With the above premise, it is evident that Russia, Ukraine and the NATO Alliance (and its members) are each acting in their respective self-interests, framing (using different words, but having the same conclusion) their actions prior to or leading to the present conflict as ‘existential’ or in their ‘security interests’, mainly militarily, but also economically and otherwise.
For Ukraine, it is unfortunate that it is caught between the interests of powerful nuclear weapons countries and finds itself seemingly alone in fighting on the ground against Russia’s advance on its territory. Ukraine has ‘progressive’ Western leaning aims and is hopeful of ascension to NATO membership while moving away from a ‘repressive’ Russian mindset still substantially entrenched in historic Soviet empire thinking that views Western leanings on most matters as against Russia’s interests.
Regarding the NATO Alliance, NATO sees its advancement and opening of its membership to other qualifying European countries as furthering its Russia-repelling security objectives and considers that such countries’ have the right to freely choose to join the Alliance if they so wish. The origins of NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) is noteworthy as it was created in 1949 after World War II as a military alliance to provide collective security for and by its members (i.e. some Western countries, then and future) as a counterweight against Russia’s predecessor, the Soviet Union.
NATO and its members’ self-interests are also shown by their reticence to support Ukraine in the current conflict in more concrete ways beyond providing lighter material support and issuing sanctions that have not deterred Russia from continuing with its current military invasion of Ukraine. NATO reasons its reticence away by saying that Ukraine is not currently a NATO member, and any concrete involvement by NATO or any of its members would mean an involvement by all its members (since by Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, an armed attack against one or more member in Europe or North America is an attack against all members), which could potentially greatly escalate the conflict beyond just Ukraine.
Even the types of some of the sanctions issued by the NATO members, Western countries and other countries against Russian interests and officials buttress the point that each government of the world/alliance acts in its own and its people’s/members best interests. A prime example of this self-interest is the current stance of refusing to restrict Russia’s access to the SWIFT/financial international payment system, which ensures continuing payments of business monies/debts to and from Russia. Continuing export trading/sales of Russia’s oil and gas to some extent is another example. Such continuing financial/business engagements by Western countries with Russia means that Russia has assured financial wherewithal to continue to fund its military actions in Ukraine, which is not in Ukraine’s interests whom NATO reportedly has ‘pledged to support’ in this conflict.
Russia, on its part, views any NATO advancement to the East and its borders as antagonistic towards Russia’s interests.
Leading up to the current military conflict, Russia has cited at different times Ukraine’s intention of joining NATO as ‘provocative’, as against Russia’s interests and a breach of a NATO ‘promise’ (a promise NATO has reportedly rejected it made) not to advance towards the East and Russia’s borders.
It is therefore interesting to note that Russia has more recently cited a broader justification that its military actions in Ukraine are to root out ‘drug addicts’ and ‘neo-Nazis’ from those ruling the Ukrainian people, thus seemingly making some kind of ‘right to self-determination’ argument. Any such pursuit of self-determination by some sections of the Ukrainian people or region(s) may or may not be genuine; however, that seems to be an excuse or attempt by Russia to frame its invasion of Ukraine as being legitimate in some manner under International Law, or perhaps to generate goodwill in certain quarters. In any event, Russia inevitably deviates from this broader justification to reveal and emphasise its real reason for the Ukrainian invasion by repeatedly going back to its main grouse – potential NATO membership by Ukraine.
Indeed, Russia has also indicated that any intention by Finland and Sweden, which share a border with, or are close to the border of, Russia, to ascend to NATO membership would also raise its ire and may result in Russia also taking drastic steps. Thus, Russia’s self-interest in the present Ukraine conflict is very clear as it seeks to prevent any further advancement of NATO towards the East and Russia’s borders.
In terms of finding a resolution to this conflict, it is difficult to see how to overcome this divide as the West/NATO and Russia each view the issue from mirroring perspectives. Each ultimately sees the other as an ‘existential’ or ‘security’ threat and it is almost impossible to change such a fundamental mindset grounded in decades, if not centuries, of mutual suspicion.
Therefore, except, and until, all the parties involved (including adjacent parties) can get to a point that they do not view the other(s) or their actions as an ‘imminent threat’, it is advocated that binding, bonafide and meaningful assurances are given and/or compromises are reached (not excluding mutual de-nuclearisation) and adhered to by all sides. Other than this, a way forward is almost impossible to decipher as it is practically a certainty that a similar conflict will arise again in the near future. Although the proposed resolution may currently seem utopian, one remains hopeful for the prevention of further acts of aggression and longstanding peace.
It goes without saying that the actions of nuclear weapons’ giants, such as Russia and NATO members, put the rest of the world at great risk with far-reaching consequences that hopefully will not devolve into a world war (World War III, for instance), a nuclear war, increased displacement of people/refugees, and/or the collapse of national and World economies, which are today inextricably linked and already weakened by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic.